- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 09:07:49 -0500
- To: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@inf.unibz.it>, public-rif-wg@w3.org
On May 27, 2006, at 6:34 PM, Michael Kifer wrote: > Peter, > > It is no big deal to be unitary by restricting the language to Datalog. > You don't even need to limit it to a function-free sublanguage. In our > roadmap the language was unitary also up to this point. > > The issue is how to build such a system in an extensible way so that it > could be extended to satisfy most of the RIF requirements. Which requirements? I'm interested to hear more about how the proposals address the various (candidate) requirements. I mostly watch at a distance, but I try to get swapped in before each ftf meeting. I see there have been several evaluations of rule systems and languages, but they seem to be with respect to an "arrangement framework" http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Rulesystem_Arrangement_Framework that's separate from the use cases and requirements. I'd much prefer that the framework were merged into the list of candidate requirements, which seems to be... http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Design_Constraints The best way to figure out the requirements, it seems to me, is to actually use them to evaluate proposals and systems. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Sunday, 28 May 2006 14:07:47 UTC